Some day, far down the road, we'll be sitting with our grandchildren at our feet. As we rock in our holochairs watching the virtual sunset in our Googlezon immersi-room, we'll get all nostalgic. We'll look back on the period of May to June 2013 fondly, remembering all those memes we posted and those angry diatribes we wrote. We'll look down fondly at those tiny children, busy killing zombies in ActiBethesdaValve-Blizzard's Portal to World of Call of Fallout 6, and we'll say something like the following:

"Little Jimmy, did I ever tell you about the days when I fought and won in the great Microsoft used-game/Internet check-in battle of '13?"

It's a bit too easy to say that Microsoft's surprise reversal of its controversial game licensing policies today was just a reaction to the strident voices of a few on the Internet—that may have been how it started, though. In the high-pressure echo chamber of E3 last week, the unfortunate impression of Microsoft's next system started to leak into the mainstream, getting ink in big namenewspapers and magazines and even getting an applause-grabbing negative mention on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last night. When your system is on the verge of becoming a joke for a late night comedian, you know something must be done.

Of course, if Sony followed Microsoft's lead in pushing the same kinds of potential restrictions on game discs, Microsoft probably could have ridden out any negative reaction to its decision. If Microsoft and Sony united on these issues, gamers would be left with nowhere to turn. Mobile and tablet games aren't nearly mature enough, the Wii U is not powerful enough to offer a true alternative for a large block of gamers, and the PC never had used games (and often uses online checks for many titles). Instead, Sony loudly called Microsoft out at its E3 press conference, garnering a huge reaction from both the press and gamers and potentially accelerating Microsoft's reversal.

Many will see today's decision as a loss for the game publishers that are often quite vocal in their hatred for used game sales, which they see as taking money directly out of their pockets. But there are some indications that the publishers weren't really pushing for the kinds of restrictions Microsoft was planning to allow on Xbox One games. In fact, many publishers were seemingly caught flat-footed when the policy was announced. What's more, not a single publisher was willing to publicly say that it would take advantage of the new used-disc-blocking abilities Microsoft gave them, perhaps fearing the public reaction they had already seen Microsoft receive. Without more explicit support from publishers, Microsoft was left twisting in the wind.

A Pyrrhic victory?

Here's the thing, though: we may have all actually lost something in winning today. In his statement, Microsoft's Don Mattrick said the company "imagined a new set of benefits such as easier roaming, family sharing, and new ways to try and buy games" in crafting its original Xbox One licensing policy. It's not too hard to envision a number of benefits that were only really feasible in a world where all Xbox One games were installed to a hard drive and connected to a cloud-equipped Xbox Live account that checked in regularly.

Maybe Microsoft could have created a Netflix style "all-you-can-play" deal that gave players access to a large portion of the system's library for a set monthly price. Maybe a more limited, digital GameFly could allow for rotating, user-selected game downloads that changed every month. Maybe they could have allowed players to loan any of their digital games to anyone around the world for a limited, 12-hour test run as a way to spread the word about an excellent title. Maybe they could have announced a set pricing structure that encouraged downloadable games to drop down to a percentage of their original price months or years after their release.

Here's the problem: Microsoft didn't do any of those things. Any of these benefits remained "imagined," while the benefits that were actually announced were weak tea. Microsoft's "easier roaming" by downloading your games at a friend's house wasn't easier at all—these remote downloads would have actually been much less convenient than just bringing along a disc. The 10-member "family sharing" plan sounded intriguing, but Microsoft couldn't answer extremely basic questions about how it worked. Could two people play two different shared games in your library at the same time? No one at Microsoft seemed willing to say. Being able to play your entire library on your hard drive without having to get up and switch discs is nice, but it's hardly a "killer app" given the drawbacks.

The way Microsoft rolled out its vision of the brave new digital-focused future was full of concrete negatives and only fuzzy, imagined positives. If Microsoft announced some truly revolutionary (and value-adding) digital game sharing and renting policies alongside its online requirements and used game restrictions, maybe the medicine would have gone down better. As it stood, the massive backlash was practically inevitable.

When I got back from E3 last week, I called my mom for a regular check-in. Obviously, I brought up the show and the battle between Sony and Microsoft. When I described Microsoft's game licensing policies to her, she said they were "the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard."

When she asked incredulously why Microsoft did what it did, I found myself fumbling for an answer. Despite recently having a long sit down with Microsoft's marketing chief where he was tasked with answering this very question, I found myself struggling. I couldn't easily explain to my own mother why in the world she should see Microsoft's "digital future" as anything but stupid.

This was, in effect, the problem. Microsoft's moves to slowly strangle the life out of the disc-based game failed the "mom test" because there was nothing strong enough to counterbalance the obvious hassles and annoyances that it imposed. And that's a shame, because it's not that hard to envision the world that Microsoft apparently did, where purely digital game libraries actually let console makers and publishers offer new and interesting ways to get access to their games, in exchange for those disc-based and online-connected annoyances. But Microsoft utterly and completely failed to sell that vision, so here we are.

By the time the next generation of consoles rolls around, we may not be so lucky. High-speed Internet access will be nearly ubiquitous in many countries by then, and the cost and speed of bandwidth will have progressed enough that shipping discs to stores will seem like a costly and slow anachronism (see: record stores, Borders, Blockbuster video). Chances are, by then, the major console makers will finally be bold enough to eliminate physical media from their hardware plans altogether (see: iTunes, Kindle, Netflix, Hulu, et al.).

At that point, no amount of screaming by the principled faithful is going to convince a critical mass of people that they should be able to sell or loan out a product that exists only as bits in the cloud. The major players could easily see fit to just not enable any kind of digital sharing or resale features without too much backlash (see: Steam, iTunes).

So yes, the market has spoken and the Internet won today. The forces that would have changed the way your gaming discs worked were rebuffed and forced back by sheer will. But in another way, we all lost the potential to see whatever Microsoft's vision of the digital future actually was. Instead in all likelihood, we'll eventually get a digital future that looks a lot like the digital present—only without any discs at all.

Promoted Comments

If MS REALLY wanted to do what they said they would, they could have kept both parts, download only games would function as previously described with all the check ins, disabled if you can't check in, and family sharing, while disc based games would be playable with the disc in the drive, playable offline and have the ability to be resold, traded, etc.

They didn't need to choose an "either/or."

The trouble was it wasn't about "teh future!" It was about killing off GameStop and securing extra revenue for the publishers (which would then heap MS with exclusives). But keeping both worlds, digital with the extras and physical media with the rights, doesn't kill GameStop. If it really was going to be a transitional phase from physical to digital media, they would keep both.

They could still implement those neat sharing features as a perk of games purchased through XBox Live. It would be a nice little push to get people to buy digitally while still acknowledging people who have shitty internet and can't do much with it. No one misses out on new games that come out, and they still get to toy around with the new features in a way that could be acceptable for the masses.

Which is it, folks? Is disc-based DRM king of gaming and the mandate of the people, or is digital sharing a good thing that, thanks to a combination of HORRIFIC PR and band-wagoning, isn't coming anymore?

I think the point is that we want to see rights retained AND see progress in distribution and use of media.

People recognized the problem with physical sales since it was clear that MS was taking something away, and people generally GET physical sales. You can hold it in your hand, so you should own it.

The conundrum here is that 100% digital distribution today (and in the forseeable future) gives the consumer ZERO rights. Someone else gets to decide what you do with your property. It's not limited to games (and it's not purely limited to digital distribution, though that's the biggest problem)

You can opt-in to daily checks if you want to play without the disc. If you lose internet you have to put the disc back in.

For disc resale, flag disc based installs on your account that are opted in so that when you uninstall the game the license is released. GameStop or whoever is still going to have to verify somehow that the license was released, though. If there was a unique id in the disc they would be able to put the disc in a reader of sorts that connects to Xbox Live and verifies that it's free and clear. That only works in retail scenarios, but GameStop could offer a disc check for a small fee for when you sell your disc to a friend. That sounds like an extra step for friend to friend sales, sure, but that's only if you opted in to play without a disc. They would do the check regardless if you are selling to them.

(The previous two points could be hard to implement so not allowing to opt in for disc-less play would be OK.)

Keep all of the sharing options (10 family members etc.) for digital downloads and disc based installs that opted in. If the game owner goes offline, make the disc based shared games unavailable.

Allow the Kinect to be turned off unless a game requires it.

Drop the price $50. $100 is too big of a gap. A $50 difference is easier to justify, especially if Xbox has more to offer for going disc-less.

I would love to see this implemented, it would be the best of both worlds and I would recommend the Xbox One to every one I know, no matter their preference or internet situation.

It seems that they could have had a much more nuanced change in their DRM policies. We could have had the best of both worlds - an in-between place between what we had last generation and what we're getting in the next.

My guess is they were running out of time to control the snowballing bad PR. This was playing real-world havoc on sales projections and the need for a strong launch. They were forced, then, to retreat back to the easiest policy imaginable: the status-quo.

Once they have time to think it through, we'll probably see some of the more progressive, consumer friendly, ideas come back.

40 posts | registered Dec 3, 2002

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

The sharing feature was never more than a glorified shopfront to nickel and dime their customers.

The only self-entitled whining I hear is from Microsoft apologists pissed off because *customers* weren't interested in their product. Did EA change the story of ME3 to appease gamers? No, because the game sold by the metric shit-ton. Did Bobby Kotick change his ways because of teh haterz? Nope, because his company made money hand over fist.

Money talks. Sony have listened to their customers and REAL stakeholders (developers) and given them what they want. MS have pandered to special corporate interests and got what they deserved.

Oh, and on this 'internet has stopped the future' stuff, the PS3 already has a 'games as a service' thing that doesn't screw over its customers - it's called Playstation Plus and everyone who has it agrees it's awesome.

Who was taking away consumer rights? You can continue spouting that garbage, but it just isn't true. MS said up front what their policies were. Used games, up to the publishers. Games locked to your account, you can share them with up to 10 people (read, more than you can with a single disc). The trade off? You need to just confirm that you are actually the owner of the game.Why? So you can't just use one disk to install the game in a console then pass that disc to someone else. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. You are entitled, and you are wrong. Just because you are part of a majority (hint, you aren't) doesn't make you right. History has taught us that.

Do you see now why Microsoft cancelled the whole "shared library/demo" thing? Had they not done so then when customers discovered the truth they'd have sued the company silly. Much better for them to cancel the whole thing at this point--and that's just what they did.

So the guy who wrote that e-mail is fired. The executives who crafted these asinine "solutions" to nonexistent problems and the ones who totally failed to market this unpolished turd remain employed.

Microsoft really seems committed to righting their wro -- oh wait haha no, they've just pulled the wool over your eyes for a moment and are still intent on BOHICA.

And not to mention that the used sale stuff was not the only thing people were upset about.

The issue with Microsoft's scheme is that a wide range of people could find something which would inconvenience them personally. From service members for whom the console was DOA due to its restrictions to all the people living in countries where Xbox Live still hasn't been rolled out after nearly a decade and hence would most likely have to use stupid workarounds like VPNs should they want to use the console. You then also had people with poor internet or all the non-service people who move a lot or spend a lot of time abroad.

A large part of the backlash had nothing to do with used sales and a lot with Microsoft seeming to tell a large part of their fan and user base to go spin.

Until they get a management change in Redmond the same people who shoved the Windows 8 Metro UI and Xbox One DRM down our throats are still there planning their next draconian move.

I really had issues with the persistent internet connection, checking your games with their servers every 24 hours, and having to install all your games on the hard disk.

Personally the used game market rules wouldn't affect me but the the way they were being implemented scared the hell out of me. The only thing Microsoft appeared to want to sell the consumer was the ability to pay licensing fees on products you purchased forever.

There is nothing to prevent Microsoft from implementing some of these features later, during the 8-10 year lifespan of the new console. Lets hope they respond to constructive suggestions as well as they do to obscene memes on social media (yeah, I posted a few too).

In truth the new consoles are just lightning rods for the core issue: What are consumers rights going to be in the digital age? Many things that were once sold as physical objects are quickly being digitized and sold as bits instead. And unlike physical goods bits can be infinitely and perfectly copied. How are these changes going to affect consumer rights? What exactly am I paying for? Access to the digital bits, or the bits themselves? Who really owns them and what relationship does that create between the creators and the consumer?

All of these questions and more will eventually be answered, but right now it's still in the early stages, and the laws are far, far behind the transition as are many business models. I believe that consumers need to defend their rights rather than give them all away. However conveniences quickly become necessities, and convenience often trumps other considerations. Only time will tell how the digital transition will change things - but it is changing them fast, and forever.

To be fair Windows 8 UI is not that bad once you start to use it. Its great for Touch and TV and once learned streamlines things for casual users. It just felt forced for power users who want their desktop and the same options. And the whole smart corner thing is kinda dumb. But Microsoft use a lot of data they gather on how people use their PC. The Office Ribbon change was due to this and had a lot of outcry. Then people got used to it, it made things better and power users could customize a toolbar if they wanted to.

I seriously don't know what was so wonderful about the original DRM XBox One was going to implement that has so many people up in arms... Perhaps if you had voraciously defended it as much as those opposed, Microsoft might not have taken the measures they did. But anyway, I digress...

So, many people are complaining about how awesome the "Family" sharing was going to be... "I can share my games with up to ANY 10 people, not just family!"... Great - wait until Call of Duty: Ghosts or the next Halo comes out... I'm sure that all 10 of you will be able to arrange and stick to a schedule so that everyone gets to play the game without being blocked because someone else in the group is already playing the game.

So, many people are complaining that, "now I won't be able to play my game library on a friend's XBox!" Current XBox LIVE Arcade games for XBox 360 can be played anywhere when you log in. Because a game is tied to your XBL account, I see no reason why this could not be available on the XBox One. "But you needed the online connection to validate your library!"... Yeah, Yeah - I'll get to it below...

So, many people are complaining that, "you're going to kill the cloud based features of the XBox One!" Last I heard, that's what "Game Requirements" are for... If a game NEEDS to be online, just put it in the requirements... It's not like EVERY game is going to require Cloud enabled features... That's up to the developers to decide, and if they do, a simple heads up on the packaging will suffice. You don't see people complaining that "WoW sucks because I can't play it offline!" I think that Blizzard has done a pretty decent job over the years of advising potential players that you NEED an internet connection to play WoW. If a game will only work when it's connected to the cloud, a simple heads up will suffice. If I can't be online to play this super cool game because my internet connection sucks or is nonexistent, then at least I know that as cool as it might be, I shouldn't buy it until I can get my XBox One connected.

I personally don't like the need to "install" a game from a disc onto the hard drive... First of all, a hard drive has limited space, and if I can get the content from the disc, I don't really mind waiting a little bit longer to load it... This is assuming that MS didn't totally cheap out on the BD drive they are including in the console... At least Sony bumped up the specs to a 6x drive on the PS4.

So, many people are complaining that "Digital is the future, and MS was trying to take this bold step!" Well yes, it most probably is, but consider this - being a retro junkie, I have Defender and Smash TV on my XBox 360, downloaded from XBox LIVE. They're great games, and I highly recommend that you get them - but you can't, because the games have since pulled from XBox LIVE. I even went as far as to check my Download history, and they are MISSING from my download list. That means that if I accidentally delete them from my console, they are gone forever... Thanks, DRM!!! Publishers can remove stuff whenever they want, so this concept of "you can always redownload your stuff whenever you want!" is pure PR BS. You can download it whenever you want - until the publisher decides to pull it from the marketplace for licensing reasons or whatnot. The license apparently supercedes your right to have the title you paid for if the original publisher no longer has rights to publish it, apparently... and that's probably the case, since the games are still technically available, but now as part of WB's Midway Arcade Origins Collection.

So, Microsoft took away "the future" and gave us back "the past"... Personally, I think they just gave us a big "F U" by reverting back to the way the current generation of consoles work. Why couldn't they have:

* A method where installing the game chould be an option, and if I do install it, I can agree to a simple online acknowledgement that the game has been installed on MY console (Yes, they could track the console it was installed on). Because they can apparently keep track of individual copies of games that are installed on a machine, I see no reason, once I have installed on my "home" console, why I should need to have the disc in the console. * If you want to use Family sharing, fine - back to the online requirement.* Library in the cloud - if you login online, you should be able to access it. I personally wouldn't mind an online requirement if I'm trying to play the game on a console that is not my "home" console. If the game is launched on my "home" console, I should be able to play it offline if the game can be played offline. This logic is not perfect, but the way I see it, it allows at most 3 copies of the game to be played (the offline copy on the original console, the online copy on a friend's console, and the disc)... Boo hoo, MS and their publising partners will go bankrupt over this.* the whole friend/game sharing thing... 30 days?! Are you serious?!

Honesty, I don't know what the best solution for the "sell your game wherever you want" problem is, because I don't know if games are installed via a unique identifier on the disc itself, or an "Install code". If I knew more about it, maybe I could think of a solution - but being limited to "retail partners" really limits my ability to get a competitive price, especially if I think I can get more selling it privately... The bottom line is, Microsoft could have given us a CHOICE!!! Who knows, maybe if I tried Microsoft's vision of the "Future" I might have liked it, but if I didn't, at least I would have a CHOICE in the matter.

In truth the new consoles are just lightning rods for the core issue: What are consumers rights going to be in the digital age? Many things that were once sold as physical objects are quickly being digitized and sold as bits instead. And unlike physical goods bits can be infinitely and perfectly copied. How are these changes going to affect consumer rights? What exactly am I paying for? Access to the digital bits, or the bits themselves? Who really owns them and what relationship does that create between the creators and the consumer?

All of these questions and more will eventually be answered, but right now it's still in the early stages, and the laws are far, far behind the transition as are many business models. I believe that consumers need to defend their rights rather than give them all away. However conveniences quickly become necessities, and convenience often trumps other considerations. Only time will tell how the digital transition will change things - but it is changing them fast, and forever.

These questions have been answered for 6 years. It's just that Microsoft hasn't released a console in the last 6 years.

Steam, iOS, Nintendo's eShop, etc, have various answers for these questions, some dramatically successful.

In truth the new consoles are just lightning rods for the core issue: What are consumers rights going to be in the digital age? Many things that were once sold as physical objects are quickly being digitized and sold as bits instead. And unlike physical goods bits can be infinitely and perfectly copied. How are these changes going to affect consumer rights? What exactly am I paying for? Access to the digital bits, or the bits themselves? Who really owns them and what relationship does that create between the creators and the consumer?

All of these questions and more will eventually be answered, but right now it's still in the early stages, and the laws are far, far behind the transition as are many business models. I believe that consumers need to defend their rights rather than give them all away. However conveniences quickly become necessities, and convenience often trumps other considerations. Only time will tell how the digital transition will change things - but it is changing them fast, and forever.

These questions have been answered for 6 years. It's just that Microsoft hasn't released a console in the last 6 years.

Steam, iOS, Nintendo's eShop, etc, have various answers for these questions, some dramatically successful.

Those questions are decidedly not answered when it comes to the question of replacing physical media, which is what MS was trying to force. On the non-physical side, sure, there are many options and existing systems to draw inspiration from. MS own digital distribution is very successful, not just on the 360, but for their non-gaming products like Office and Windows.

Their mistake was trying to replace the successful (and well liked) physical sharing model with a new one, untested, with unclear rules and restrictions. Since the Atari 2600, people have been able to share physical games with one another without limit. MS cannot expect to change this model "just because." As digital distribution grows, consumer freedom in that realm will be revisited more than once I'm sure.

I wish Microsoft didn't fall back on their decision. I liked so many of the things you would've been able to do that you now will not be able to do. But I feel most of this is due to their poor descriptions of different features. Had they explained all of this in full detail instead of saying "We'll have more on this later" I feel they wouldn't have received so much backlash from people jumping ship at the sight of an iceberg. Those who jumped, I feel, didn't think that maybe the ship wasn't actually headed toward the iceberg and/or could have diverted from it. But now, I feel like we dropped anchor and we aren't moving forward as fast as we potentially can. I'm disappointed more than relieved at this decision by Microsoft and you'll see what I mean when/if you read below...

What I see we've GAINED from this:-Ability to play offline indefinitely (obviously)-Ability to sell/trade/etc. the physical disc as we currently can (obviously)-Ability to not have Kinect send info about you (since the One doesn't require internet connection once per 24hrs)-Ability to play games beyond the One support timeline (ex. No more games/servers/support for the original Xbox, but you can still play the games, given your Xbox isn't malfunctioning)*-Ability to play a game manufactured for foreign continent/country consoles.

What I see we've LOST from this:-Ability to play a sell-able game in the first couple hours of release without leaving your home (online ordering [eBay for example] is similar, but not quite what I'm talking about here)-Ability to share your game library (that's ALL games registered to your account) across the country instantly with 10 other accounts owned by friends/family/yourself (not sure why you'd have two accounts but it's possible I guess)-Ability to change games instantaneously without getting up from the couch/chair/bet/futon/etc. (for those who are lazy, such as myself)-Ability to re-sell digital games-Ability to access your game library from any console, anywhere

*I am unsure the status of support/Live functionality on the original Xbox console as I never use mine.**I'm sure I could think of more for each list after posting this

Contrary to apparently many people, I actually like the "LOST" things more than the "GAINED" things. I am separated from my family and friends, save for my roommates, so sharing games without traveling an hour to give them a disc was a HUGE plus. I am always connected to an internet connection that I can play multiplayer matches on so the mandatory 24hr check ins aren't a fallback for me. I liked the idea of buying AAA titles straight from XBL and being able to sell them again after I finish with them. Sure I can still switch between games immediately with only a voice command, but not between games that I can eventually sell again later.

I've lost my train of thought but if you could take anything from this, it's that my stance is with the previous "restrictions" on the One and not this new (yet old since it's the current system) system. I am saddened to see what-could-be is now what-won't-be.

Had they explained all of this in full detail instead of saying "We'll have more on this later" I feel they wouldn't have received so much backlash

Whatever words you use to explain "cannot trade physical game disks", "must be online once at least every 24 hours", and "mandatory kinect included" will not change the opinion of most of us that were outraged. You don't understand: I (dare I say, we) do not care what cool whiz-bang new features you get, if those restrictions are all in place.

-Ability to share your game library (that's ALL games registered to your account) across the country instantly with 10 other accounts owned by friends/family/yourself (not sure why you'd have two accounts but it's possible I guess)-Ability to change games instantaneously without getting up from the couch/chair/bet/futon/etc. (for those who are lazy, such as myself)

You've lost the first. You haven't lost the second if you just do what they want you to do anyway -- buy all the games through the Live Marketplace. If you don't want a single disk for your XBone, you do not have to buy one.

Kyle, your argument is a little flawed. There's no reason Microsoft can't still offer those things anyway. They've agreed to eliminate the restrictions on disc based games. That doesn't mean they can't still offer a digital only version that Can be lent to friends digitally with all of the features and benefits you try to paint in this article as a possible digital future. I agree that Microsoft completely failed to sell their vision. However regardless of their vision of the digital future, there's simply no excuse for placing online restrictions on disc based single player games. I see no reason Microsoft can't offer unrestricted resale, trading, loaning on physical media versions of games while also offering discounted digital versions with necessary restrictions but also additional online benefits.

It seems like Kyle deicded to write an article about all of the wonderful things we'd given up by rejecting Microsoft's Orwellian vision of the future. (What motivated him to do this, I have no idea…) But when he sat down to write it, he realized there were no wonderful things, despite the fact he'd just spent a week at E3 and had a lengthy sit-down with MS marketing to explain the benefits. Well, there was Family Sharing, but MS refused to explain how that was gonna work, because it was never going to be anything more than a crippled version of Sony's Full Game Trial, which has been around for years.

So, after talking to his mom and realizing there were no benefits, rather than changing the tone to "Why would MS think we'd give all of this up when we were getting nothing in return?" he just decided to invent some benefits and write about those instead. Ironically, many of the ideas he came up with for the fabulous but forsaken future were already being done by Sony, such as the aforementioned Full Game Trials, and paying a subscription for unlimited access to a certain selection of games (which is basically what PlayStation Plus is).

He'd have been better off writing the latter article, especially since he already had the answer from his interview with the marketing guy; MS thought they could get away with this because they'd literally done studies which showed them most people were so ill-informed, they'd buy their product no matter how badly it was fucking them over.

Currently, I only buy disk based games.. and never sell them. We have > 100 Xbox 360 game disks currently. I never buy direct download games because we have 4 Xbox 360s and like the flexibility to move physical disks from Xbox to Xbox. If direct download games had the Family Sharing available I would never buy a disk based game again.

You would have loved Sony's policy on digital sharing; all of your PSN purchases could be installed to any five consoles you activated on your account, with no restrictions on total users, no restrictions on concurrent play — yes, all five of you could play a single copy of the game at the same time, and no online checkins whatsoever.

I say you would have loved it, because the pubs made Sony dial it back to two consoles a while ago. Still, no limitations on concurrent play and no checkins though. So now, you'd need to buy two copies of each game for everyone in the house to play together. Better than four copies though, I suppose.

So, many people are complaining that "Digital is the future, and MS was trying to take this bold step!" Well yes, it most probably is, but consider this - being a retro junkie, I have Defender and Smash TV on my XBox 360, downloaded from XBox LIVE. They're great games, and I highly recommend that you get them - but you can't, because the games have since pulled from XBox LIVE. I even went as far as to check my Download history, and they are MISSING from my download list. That means that if I accidentally delete them from my console, they are gone forever... Thanks, DRM!!!

Too bad you didn't buy that stuff on the PSN. I can still re-download anything I've ever gotten there, even stuff that was pulled from the storefront years ago.

Kyle, your argument is a little flawed. There's no reason Microsoft can't still offer those things anyway. They've agreed to eliminate the restrictions on disc based games. That doesn't mean they can't still offer a digital only version that Can be lent to friends digitally with all of the features and benefits you try to paint in this article as a possible digital future. I agree that Microsoft completely failed to sell their vision. However regardless of their vision of the digital future, there's simply no excuse for placing online restrictions on disc based single player games. I see no reason Microsoft can't offer unrestricted resale, trading, loaning on physical media versions of games while also offering discounted digital versions with necessary restrictions but also additional online benefits.

I found that there were people so quick to blame the 'minority' or whatever term used to belittle the masses and claim we ruined it for them. What they fail to realize is that this was all Microsoft's decision. They chose to strip the whole idea even though it is technically still viable. It is almost like throwing a temper-tantrum, "You people are mean so you can't have any of these cool toys".

What they and apparently Microsoft do not realize is that we as consumers want choice. We want to choose if we use the kinect or not. We want to be able to choose whether or not we even have the thing kinected. This is the lesson Blizzard has had to learn with regards to Diablo III, consumers want to make our own decisions and forcing our hand is not appreciated.

Why do so many people not tie-in that you can buy digital games on Xbox Live today?

You do not have to buy a DVD if you don't want to.

Blinded by the fact that they won't be able to freeload off their friends and looking for something more noble to complain about.

MS has not said or hinted that their "download the same day as release for every title" is going away with the "family plan" and "always connected" stuff.

The only "bad" thing coming from this back tracking is removal of the shared library, which was admittedly nice even if just a demo thing -- and which they could also turn back on at any time, if they just leave physical disks out of it, and make the online requirement only for people actively the *borrowing*.

I read that the share games with 10 people "benefit" was nothing more than just a 60 minute demo for your friend/family. This is what a lot of people are considering a big loss due to Microsoft's policy reversal?

So, many people are complaining that "Digital is the future, and MS was trying to take this bold step!" Well yes, it most probably is, but consider this - being a retro junkie, I have Defender and Smash TV on my XBox 360, downloaded from XBox LIVE. They're great games, and I highly recommend that you get them - but you can't, because the games have since pulled from XBox LIVE. I even went as far as to check my Download history, and they are MISSING from my download list. That means that if I accidentally delete them from my console, they are gone forever... Thanks, DRM!!!

Too bad you didn't buy that stuff on the PSN. I can still re-download anything I've ever gotten there, even stuff that was pulled from the storefront years ago.

I think you might have missed my point - my entire DL history is there, including the very first Marketplace game I purchased (Geometry Wars), but the above titles are not... Why? Because WB interactive has since acquired the right to those games, and rather than continuing to make them available, they probably opted to have them removed. If everything is available in your PSN download list, it's only because none of the publishers have pulled those games from the PSN store, thus, you can still download them if you need to... but buyer beware - if you ever remove a game from your hard drive, remember that you might not be able to get it back some day!

On the flip side, at least it's nice that the PS3 a) let's you upgrade the hard drive, and b) let's you back up your stuff!!! I'm hoping PS4 adopts the same on both counts.

I read that the share games with 10 people "benefit" was nothing more than just a 60 minute demo for your friend/family. This is what a lot of people are considering a big loss due to Microsoft's policy reversal?

I actually saw an interview with Major Nelson who said that only 1 person could be playing the game at any time. I'm sure that getting 10 people to agree to exclusive time on Call of Duty: Ghosts will be a piece of cake!

JC, I haven't noticed anything go missing from my d/l history, but there's nearly 1000 items on there, so it's possible, I suppose. I just know that "no longer available in the Store" doesn't necessarily mean "no longer available to re-download" on the PS3. /shrug

Sony have already confirmed the hard drive will be user-upgradable, just as it is now. I can't imagine backups going away. Under the current system, it will backup and restore copy-protected content such as games, but it will only restore the protected content to the console from which the backup was sourced. IOW, if I bought a second PS3, restoring the backup from my original unit to the new unit would only restore data files, not the protected content. However, there's also a "transfer tool," which will migrate protected content from one machine to another, and (I believe) this removes it from the original machine.

I read that the share games with 10 people "benefit" was nothing more than just a 60 minute demo for your friend/family. This is what a lot of people are considering a big loss due to Microsoft's policy reversal?

I actually saw an interview with Major Nelson who said that only 1 person could be playing the game at any time. I'm sure that getting 10 people to agree to exclusive time on Call of Duty: Ghosts will be a piece of cake!

Durrr. Come on, you can only play one copy at a time of a physical disk. Why would this be any different?